on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 Frieda Rosenberg <friedat@EMAIL.UNC.EDU> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson wrote:
>
> > > snip...
> > The myth of 'excessive publication' has no
> > factual basis, of course. It is a canard spread by
> > unscrupulous managers seeking to undermine the
> > influence of scientists and scholars. Derek de Solla
> > Price and others investigating questions of
> > productivity in science established clearly that most
> > [between 53 to 61 percent of] authors contribute no
> > more than one paper in a lifetime while about 25
> > percent can be called 'very prolific.' [LITTLE SCIENCE
> > BIG SCIENCE. rev. ed. Columbia University Press 1986]
>
> So the "myth" of "excessive" publication (undefined term) has "no
> factual basis, of course"? How could it, since it's a subjective
> judgment? Pace Mr Price, who died in 1983 (and whose book detailed the
> "exponential" --his term-- growth in scientific publication, despite
> what he may have said about individual productivity), more modern
> figures constantly repeat the average of between one or two
> peer-reviewed scientific papers per year per researcher across many
> scientific disciplines.
Yes, Price also noted that if you know how many
papers are published, you can reliably estimate the
number of authors. Price also pointed out that this
measure of 'science productivity' has been true
for over 100 years. As far as I know, the science
of scientometrics has not detected any change in
recent decades.
The growth of spending on R&D is a more important
'input' factor than numbers of papers per author.
It is most easily correlated with the 'output' of
publication. My question is, why doesn't the growth
of spending on libraries keep up with spending on
R&D? [JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION
SCIENCE. 50:366-380. 1999].
> There is also evidence of similar quotas--a
> couple of peer reviewed papers a year-- being promoted by academic
> departments and academic administrations. Incongruously, you
> accuse the latter in the above paragraph of *condemning* excess
> research
> in an attempt to undermine the influence of scholars (although they
> depend on them to bring in grants, as you say later--the usual theme of
> administration as all-around whipping boy, whatever the logic.
The SERIALS PRICES PROJECT REPORT of the Association
of Research Libraries (1989) made 'excessive publication'
a leading factor in its propaganda campaign of the early
1990s. The theme was amplified by SCIENCE, THE SCIENTIST,
60 MINUTES, and THE NEW YORK TIMES, whose editors never
bothered to check the reliability of the ARL as a
objective source.
> It's
> also well established
> that senior researchers have smaller output than junior researchers,
> that junior researchers suffer from angst about the pressure to publish
> to even be admitted into the guild, and that quite often junior
> researchers do the major work on papers bearing a senior researcher's
> name (usually, along with their own). Check editorials and opinion
> pieces in The Scientist, e.g., S. Perkowitz, Jan. 1993.
Without mentoring, research would be in deep trouble.
In terms of lifetime authorship, many juniors
disappear after one or two papers. Slow and
steady wins the race.
> Pressure to publish leads to hasty, sloppy work. Hasty and sloppy
> published work may mislead later researchers, no matter how
> comprehensive
> the library collection. Peer review which must be carried out in a week
> or two can't catch all of that. I am encouraged by attempts of
> university administrations to look for qualitative measures, and hope
> they continue in that path despite the lures of grants and cash flow.
The same sort of peer review that serves editors
supports approvals of academic research grants now
in the tens of billions of dollars with huge
overhead allowances going to profitability.
It is pitiful.
> What is the library's mission? For publishers and their advocates,
> including yourself, unfortunately, it boils down to one objective: "to
> get more
> money and to spend its money for as many of our products as possible;"
> the only qualitative measure you recognize is acquisitions spending, and
> any attempt of the library to get off that treadmill meets with your
> withering scorn.
Actually, the measure that I cite most [in SCIENCE
JASIS, SOCIETY, AGAINST THE GRAIN, JOURNAL OF
ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, PRQ, ISSUES IN SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIANSHIP, etc.] is total library
spending. I have made a point of the ratio of
interlibrary borrowing to total numbers of volumes,
something that I call COLLECTION FAILURE QUOTIENT,
but very little about acquisitions spending.
Scorn, and I am not certain that is the right word,
or something of the sort is deserved by the 'enemies
of the library' described by Crawford and Gorman in
FUTURE LIBRARIES [1995].
[snip]
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>
